2005-06-18

Anglophone Geostrategy

Open Letter to Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda

Dear Sir,I have watched with great interest the response to 9/11, and it has gone exactly as I predicted. I thought you might be interested in "what went wrong" so that you can have a sporting chance of winning.

Ok, the first thing you should know about warfare is that it is a SCIENCE. The reason we (the free world) keep on winning is because of the enormous amount of thinking that we do. There are two aspects to this. One is the science of battle, where weapons systems are employed against other weapons systems. The other is the science of geostrategy, which is building up alliances. Basically combining weapons systems. The Anglophones are the masters of both of these things, which is why Anglophones haven't been beaten, except when they fight each other, for nearly 1000 years. Let me explain to you what the UK has been up to for centuries, and the US has been up to since it took on the role after WWII.

The ultimate goal of the UK/US is to convert the rest of the world into countries like Australia (and maybe Poland). You see, Australia turns up to help with a fight ON ITS OWN. Australia uses its own resources to do this. It doesn't need to be forced or bribed by the US. I'm not sure exactly why you think Australia turns up to so many fights. Maybe you've never thought about it at all (first big mistake). Maybe you think it's because Australia is predominantly white (true, but wrong reason again). Maybe you think it's because Australia is predominantly Christian (nominally true, but less than 1% practicing, and wrong reason yet again). There are 3 things that Australians (or at least, a significant number, including the current government) fight against. One is dogma. One is non-humanist behaviour. One is subjugators. Most Australians will not use these words though, they'll probably just say "we fight for freedom". But my analysis is that it is those 3 things that Australians fight against.

Ok, so the TECHNICAL (scientific - remember, everything is done with SCIENCE) problem facing the US is how to convert the rest of the world into countries like Australia. The world has been full of dictators for a very long time, so it's not easy to get a shared ideology of freedom. But that is what has been done in Europe. Almost all of Europe is free, and that means their ideology is common, which is what NATO represents. NATO is a collection of anti-subjugators and non-subjugators, NATURALLY ALLYING for mutual protection. This is a very good situation for the US. Once again, no resources need to be spent to get these countries to come together in mutual DEFENCE. Getting them to actually join in an ATTACK is harder. But even if they refuse to join the attack, they at least remain NEUTRAL, which is also OK.

Now about the dictators. So long as they aren't hostile to the US, and instead are either neutral or allied, it is AGAINST SCIENCE to attack them. It is better to use the limited resources to attack a HOSTILE REGIME. The US military spends its time analyzing WEAPONS SYSTEMS of HOSTILE REGIMES. Since Afghanistan didn't have much in the way of weapons systems, it was largely ignored. Terrorism is normally a relatively minor problem compared to hostile regimes. Your attacks on 9/11 were very clever in so far as they did a lot of damage. But it was largely a strategic blunder. You should have held your punch, and waited for the nice Mr Khan to give you some nukes. As it is, all you did was activate a more robust geostrategic policy.

You see, terrorists don't normally have access to major weapons systems. As such, they can do limited damage, and it is mainly a job for the police. After 9/11, the US SHOULD have been able to simply ring up Interpol and have you arrested. But why wouldn't this work? Because of two problems. One is that there is territory in the world that is not under the control of the rule of law. The second problem is that in some territory, terrorism is not against the law. The SCIENTIFIC goal of the US is thus to ensure that terrorism is against the law everywhere, and that there is nowhere in the world that is outside of the law. This then feeds back into GEOSTRATEGY, which is to make foreign governments "more like Australia". So Afghanistan was one place where it wasn't against the law to have a terrorist group. The solution therefore is to CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT.

The US makes best use of RESOURCES by using the minimum amount of force required to change the government of Afghanistan. And basically completely ignore the POLICE job of CATCHING YOU. The police in Afghanistan or Pakistan should be in charge of catching you. It's not a job for the US military. It's a waste of resources. Manhunts are not what the US military is trained to do, or good at doing. What the military is good at is changing the government. Now there was no need to change the government in Pakistan. The government in Pakistan was smart enough to realise that it was too dangerous to continue supporting terrorism. So they have stopped doing so. And Pakistan is using its OWN RESOURCES to bring the law, "terrorism is illegal", across all of its territory. Again, this was a wise (scientific) move by the US. Make use of other people's resources.

Now when it came to Afghanistan, the US had another OPPORTUNITY. Instead of using its own forces, it could use the Northern Alliance. Under the Northern Alliance, terrorism was illegal. All they needed to do was assist the Northern Alliance to victory, and the terrorism problem in Afghanistan would be solved. This was a job for the military, and it was accomplished. Then there was a different geostrategic problem - ensuring that Afghanistan remained stable. For that, the Northern Alliance needed to be replaced with a more representative government. This change of government was achieved diplomatically. Fahim and Rabbani weren't very happy about it, but they relented, gradually, without needing to use US forces against them. And the most stable that the government can get is with a democracy. Because then you have the majority of people on your side, and you should have maximum stability. So this task was achieved, diplomaticaly, also. This did pose a risk though - what if the majority voted in favour of terrorism? Then the US military would have installed a dictatorship instead. Fortunately, democracy worked! Now there is no need for the US to spend resources to keep Afghanistan under control. The people themselves keep it under control. It's wonderful!

Now after a brilliantly-successful campaign in Afghanistan, which used the minimum amount of resources required to change Afganistan from a pro-terrorist country to an anti-terrorist country, what else could be done using SCIENCE? Well, Iraq was bleeding RESOURCES every year, because of the maintenance of the no-fly zones. By eliminating this problem, it means paying a ONCE-OFF COST, thus SAVING RESOURCES in the long-term. In addition, it would mean that there is one less HOSTILE REGIME in the world, and using democracy (remember, no resources), it would remain stable and be either an ally or a neutral.

Now, in geostrategy, you can't afford to be compassionate. You need to be COLD, HARD and RATIONAL. However, there is an INDEPENDENT strategy of bringing HUMAN RIGHTS to everyone in the world. Thus, whenever we can GEOSTRATEGICALLY JUSTIFY an action, our reaction is "wonderful, human rights are going to be spread!". There are terrible human rights abuses happening in places like Saudi Arabia too. But it is GEOSTRATEGICALLY SUICIDAL to open a front against an ALLY, when there are still ENEMIES who remain undefeated. That is why we CAN'T AFFORD to attack Saudi Arabia. Instead, we have to do our best using DIPLOMACY to get Saudi Arabia to change. Maybe after all our enemies are defeated we can force the Saudis to stop their atrocious behaviour. But until then, we must not act against them. You presumably thought that by using so many Saudis on 9/11, that the US would cease being an ally with Saudi Arabia. No. That's not how it works. It depends on whether the government is hostile or not, as it is the government that controls the RESOURCES.

So, who's next? There's only a handful of "hostile regimes" remaining. Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea. Iran is the one that is most likely to give the MAXIMUM BENEFIT for MINIMUM RESOURCES. The regime can likely be toppled with the amazing success of Afghanistan. The infrastructure is already in place for democracy to work. There are already security forces that can be reused - no need to do nation-building. And of course, don't forget the independent goal of spreading human rights. Iran is a horrible violator of human rights. It even rapes its own citizens. By toppling Iran, we kill 2 or more birds with 1 stone.

Now you may be wondering why the US government never says any of this in public. Well, part of GEOSTRATEGY is STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY. They can't give away their whole game-plan, because otherwise they may SCARE ALLIES such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Remember, it is SUICIDE to open a war front with an ally or neutral! They instead do their best to concentrate on an issue such as WMD that more people can agree with. Most people will not agree to toppling Iraq so that the US can save money by not patrolling the no-fly zones and not having to deal with a hostile regime. Others don't care how much money the US has to waste on things like this. It's not their money that's being wasted! And many people won't accept the "human rights" argument either, because they can see that there is inconsistency between US allies and US enemies. As a human rights campaigner, I find this attitude horrible - basically saying that because the US doesn't fix ALL human rights abuses, it shouldn't be allowed to fix ANY. This is condemning people to holocaust for no reason at all. I personally prefer to bring in human rights on the back of US geostrategy. Once again, killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Maximum benefit for minimum resources.

Iraq wasn't all about geostrategy and human rights. There was another benefit. It is a chance to ask Muslim Arabs IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF FREEDOM what they REALLY THINK. This gives us a chance to understand them, so that hopefully we can figure out a way to make Muslim Arabs be more like Australians and less like terrorists. Part of the environment of freedom was to go into Iraq with insufficient forces to control the country, so that we could find out what they would do if they had no restrictions on them at all. This is why Al Sadr was allowed to take over Najaf and the terrorists were allowed to take over Fallujah. You see, according to modern economic theory (SCIENCE) there is no better system of government than secular capitalist liberal democracy. But we don't claim to know everything. There are people who seem to think there's an alternative, something called an "Islamic Paradise". We don't know what this is. We know what an "Islamic Holocaust" is - we watched you create it in Afghanistan. We also noticed that you wouldn't allow people to freely dissent against this form of government, nor vote for it in a democracy, presumably because you knew that the only people who benefitted from the Islamic Holocaust were people like you - it did nothing to help the ordinary people. Ok, so we give the people of Najaf a chance to teach us for a change! The people of Najaf soon got sick and tired of this, as Al Sadr turned out to just be a common thief, robbing local businesses. And the terrorists in Fallujah turned the city into "Max Max - Beyond Thunderdome". They managed to produce some car bombs, but not actually do anything that improved people's lives. So, no lessons for the Anglophones as far as "paradise/Utopia" is concerned, but hopefully some lessons for the residents of Fallujah. Oh, if you think the democratically-elected leaders of Iraq are "puppets", you're also wrong. The elections weren't rigged. It was AGAINST SCIENCE. The only way we can STUDY Arabs/Muslims is to see what they REALLY THINK when they can VOTE IN SECRET. That way we can see if what they say in secret matches what they say when answering opinion polls. Also, if the people of Iraq had democratically elected to support terrorism, we would react to that in due course. Potentially with economic sanctions. Potentially by simply toppling the democracy and installing a liberal government as existed under Allawi.

So, there you have it. We're busy trying to make friends with places like Russia, so that we can have a broader alliance. 9/11 brought Russia closer to the free world, and Beslan gave Russia no other choice but to be allied with us in order to defeat a common enemy. We're also trying to make friends with China, while at the same time protecting Taiwan. You on the other hand are merely appealing to the "Arab Street". These people don't have access to resources, so it's not much of an alliance. In fact, those people are likely to be jailed if they're not careful, as those governments are allied with the US. That is what happens when you concentrate on ANGRY HUMANS instead of WEAPON SYSTEMS. It doesn't matter how angry someone is, what matters is what sort of weapons they have access to. This is SCIENCE.

Another thing you should know is that we don't fight for honour, glory or to prove how brave our soldiers are. We're only interested in WINNING. And when we fight, we don't use ANGER. We instead use CALCULATED VIOLENCE. All all levels from the soldier on the ground to the President of the US, everyone is using their BRAIN, not their emotions. Well, people have emotions too obviously, but it is part of SCIENCE to not let the emotions cloud our judgement. Acting emotionally instead of rationally is a recipe for disaster. Instead, the proper thing to do is get your emotions, then FORMULATE A PLAN. You seem to think that God is going to help you win battles. None of the western battle plans involve God coming to the rescue. All the plans we use are based on the assumption that all the weapons systems will operate according to the laws of physics and that God, if he exists at all, will not intervene. How many times do you need to lose before you realise this yourself? In actual fact, do you ever stop to think that maybe you are worshipping the WRONG GOD, and that's why you keep on losing? Just a thought! Also, do you want to know why Mr Bush keeps on insisting "Islam is a religion of peace", even while Islamic militants are murdering innocent children every day, with Beslan probably being the most stark example? It's because it's NOT STRATEGIC to open a war front with every Muslim country simultaneously. It's better to fight them one at a time. You haven't yet seen the WRATH of the US. So far all you've seen is some minor battles, part of a research project into Middle Eastern behaviour. At an appropriate time, the US will make a concerted effort to wipe out the ideology that looks upon non-Muslims as "kaffirs" and "najis". Now is not the time to do that. The time for wrath is after the geostrategic battle has been won. The wrath may involve complete genocide of Muslims as an appropriate response to 9/11. It depends on who is in charge and what they REALLY think about the "religion of peace". At the moment, this is all "strategic ambiguity".

Oh yes. You've got an additional problem in that you think that you beat the Soviets in Afghanistan, and that you think the US is weaker than the Soviet Union. This is another misunderstanding of warfare, combined with a misunderstanding of culture. First of all the Soviets were easily able to maintain control of Afghanistan. There was simply a change of management that CHOSE not to assert that control any more. And the same applies to the US in Vietnam. The idiotic Democrats believed that the Vietnamese communists were some kind of great humanists and CHOSE to WITHDRAW SUPPORT from the South Vietnamese. I'm not surprised that you got confused - a lot of people in the west are similarly confused. But the MILITARY is NOT CONFUSED. The MILITARY knows they could have EASILY WON.

So how can you win? Well, you can try what you're trying in Iraq, which is to drag out the war for as long as you can so that the US CIVILIANS will get sick of the war and withdraw the troops. But you really blew the PR campaign by calling the Shia and the Kurds "infidels". There is an endless stream of volunteers there, who will be able to take over the job from the Americans in due course. You're in a pretty bad situation, because the US has still got another 3 years of Republican rule. That's a LOT of time for the Iraqi troops to be trained up to take over the job. It's a losing proposition. The Iraqi army has all the heavy weapons. Even if the US pulled out now, I don't believe you would be able to defeat the Iraqi army. They would just use different tactics, such as cordoning off Sunni cities, or arbitrary arrest of all Sunnis of military age.

Anyway, as an Australian, I'd like to thank you for giving me two new allies - Afghanistan and Iraq. It likely wouldn't have happened this fast without your help. We would instead have been concentrating on trying to secure Europe. Specifically the very long task of trying to get cultural changes in Russia so that Russia becomes a NATURAL ally with us. Your action has instead created an OPPORTUNITY to liberate an unspecified number of countries and watch them turn into neutrals or allies, and watch human rights take hold in each of them. Thanks for that. Much appreciated! By the way, the images of innocent American civilians jumping from the WTC is an image that is likely to make large numbers of Americans patiently persevere until all enemies of the free world have been defeated. That includes your favourite cause - the Palestinians. Were you surprised that there was no reaction to the Palestinians celebrating the towers falling down? Did you think it was a sign of US weakness? Did you think that Israel withdrawing from Lebanon was a sign of weakness? You really need to understand the culture of your enemy if you hope to defeat him. Actually, I don't know of any technical way for you to defeat your enemies. There may be some way, but you'll have to think pretty hard to find one. From where I'm sitting, it appears that it's the other way around. The US has a clear path from here to final worldwide victory. All the alliances are in place. All the weapons systems are in place. Everything is set for a blitzkrieg to topple the remaining enemies and then the remaining dictators, with the exception of China and maybe North Korea. But those countries can be hit hard economically. And China is not really hostile. It is changing from within and probably doesn't need either military or economic warfare to fix.

And I'd like to make one request please if you don't mind. The US are our allies. Our mates. The attack on the WTC made me feel that we'd let down our mates, by failing to protect them. If you have any further plans for terrorism, can you hit Australia instead of the US. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, has gone to a lot of effort in an attempt to divert your attention to us. We're in this fight to the bitter end. By the way, did you know that Israel would not even exist if it weren't for the Australian Lighthorse charging Beersheba in WWI? Just thought I'd mention it in case it was of some interest to you. If you could spare Israel and Iraq, that would be nice too. They've had enough. We're just getting warmed up. Do you know where to find us? We're just south of Indonesia. West of New Zealand. Can't miss us. In actual fact, Australia was part of the effort to take some "Muslim land" (East Timor) and convert it into "infidel land". You might want to factor that into your deliberations too. I personally live in Sydney, in case the rumours of you having a suitcase nuke are true. Bless you.

Update: And here is why crimes are not punished straight after they are committed. Criminals (such as you, Osama), get punished on OUR timetable in OUR way.